Posted
by
Unknown Lamer
on Monday January 09, 2012 @12:10PM
from the only-do-evil-occasionally dept.

New submitter DCTech writes "South Korea's Fair Trade Commission is accusing Google of methodically interfering with an anti-competition investigation into Android. 'Google deleted files and made its employees work from home in an attempt to frustrate the investigation, alleges the commission in an interview with a South Korean newspaper [machine translation]. The non-cooperation allegedly came after Google's Seoul office was raided by the commission's officials in September. The anti-competition probers were looking into whether Google's Android phones unfairly prioritize Google search and are "systematically designed" to make it difficult to switch to another option'. Now the South Korean watchdog is considering maximum fines for Google's non-compliance. Google is currently under investigation for similar anti-competition issues in Europe and the U.S."

The responses to these stories are always interesting. Because it's Google, there will be criticisms of the South Korean commission and questioning of their claims. If this was Microsoft, however, the accusations would be taken at face value as more proof of Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Google is being investigated all over the world for anti-competitive behavior, but you can't even suggest that Google has a monopoly on web search around here without getting pounded with downmods. Even the lead counsel who prosecuted Microsoft in their antitrust case believes Google is a monopoly [cnn.com].

It seems as if some people just can't believe that Google would ever do anything wrong. This isn't the cute little search engine from 2000. They went public and became an ad company; 97% of their revenue comes from web advertising [gigaom.com]. But I think they're really good at appealing to tech communities, using feel-good phrases like "openness" to make themselves more endearing to those demographics.

1) It took a long time for Microsoft to run through its goodwill and become the monster it is today. We all hated IBM back in the day... Perception changes slowly.2) Now that Google has a "monopoly," they're still trying to add products to the marketplace. They're still trying to make their existing products, services, and everything they do better. Compare that to Microsoft and IE6, which set us back at least 4 years in the web space. Name me 1 (as in a single) feature Microsoft introduced to comply with standards or make our lives any better between Netscape dying and Firefox showing up.3) Google doesn't have a slimy history of creating contracts with PC makers excluding the bundling of products that aren't made by Google. Microsoft leveraged their market position in search to hold PC makers hostage, and kill products that competed with Office. Show me a case where Google did any of that, and I'll eat my words.

3) Google doesn't have a slimy history of creating contracts with PC makers excluding the bundling of products that aren't made by Google. Microsoft leveraged their market position in search to hold PC makers hostage, and kill products that competed with Office. Show me a case where Google did any of that, and I'll eat my words.

That's what the whole story is about. There's also another such thing, and it's why EU is investigating Google for monopoly abuse. Most slashdotters stupidly think it's because of their search engine and users, but it's not, because you're not Google's customers. EU is investigating Google for disallowing advertisers to run same ads on competing ad networks. Since Google maintains such a huge market share in online advertising, that is outright monopoly abuse. Google is directly leveraging it's market position to kill competing ad networks.

Interestingly, recently Google changed their "Ads by Google" advertisements on websites to AdChoices [bytelib.com]. This is the very exact "soft" approach Google takes. Use cute and soft names and marketing. Hey, it's AdChoices, so there's clearly choices for advertisers! On top of that they wanted to change it from "Ads by Google" because all those advertisements were hurting Google's image. Not to worry - Just change it to different name and now people don't directly associate with the clean Google anymore!

Use cute and soft names and marketing. Hey, it's AdChoices, so there's clearly choices for advertisers!

Carl Rove used that technique a lot. IIRC one that stands out was one of GW Bush's assaults on the EPA that they gave a warm fuzzy name to. Something like 'green environment policy'. That name is probably way off, but it is the idea. And then they say it over and over in the media until the (generally lazy) public believes it, even though they were doing the harmful opposite.

The EU is investigating Google because large corporate targets are a good way to channel the electorates anger safely away from the people who want to be elected. If its going to be us vs them, we need a them--and European's natural distrust of large corporations makes Google a natural target. Ignore that they flat out deny doing most of the things they're accused of by various EU investigative bodies--and there's no evidence to suggest they do either.

Name me even 1 feature that Google introduced to comply with standards.These guys even messed with the well accepted TCP/IP packet size just to make their main page to load faster, screwing all the rest of the world. What the........

Or, in short, Microsoft used up all of their goodwill a long time ago. Google hasn't - yet. Geeks are skeptical by nature and are willing to give a company or person that is fundamentally good the benefit of the doubt.

2) I don't know what timeline you want, since Firefox showed up in Feb 2004 well before the end of Netscape in 2008. But let's pick 1998 as your "Netscape" year, since that was when the source code of Netscape was abandoned.

1999 -- Microsoft introduces "AJAX". It made our lives significantly better. (or at least, it was what turned the Internet from Web1.0 static pages into Web2.0 interactive pages).

They patented it before they released it. They also didn't create it to comply with standards. But technically you can implement AJAX without XHR, using iframes or script tags, and the most browser-independent methods originally did this because IE wasn't compliant with what everyone else was doing. To this day, even IE9 and proposed IE10 is still dramatically different than every other browser in regards to standards (for eg. the handling of XHR request data, the browser still enforces control over MIME

The concept behind the XMLHttpRequest object was originally created by the developers of Outlook Web Access (by Microsoft) for Microsoft Exchange Server 2000.[4] An interface called IXMLHTTPRequest was developed and implemented into the second version of the MSXML library using this concept.[4][5] The second version of the MSXML library was shipped with Internet Explorer 5.0 in March 1999, allowing access, via ActiveX, to the IXMLHTTPRequest interface using the XMLHTTP wrapper of the MSXML library.[6]

You must be very young and foolish. Many of us who had used Unix, VMS and even CPM were as pissed as f*&$ when DOS appeared and we had to use it. We wanted an OS that worked properly, and all we got was sh*te.

Any goodwill to MS was confined to people who knew nothing else from day 1. As for Windows 1.0 - you can't handle the truth <throws ninja sword at screen>

1 - It was when Microsoft used my example in #3. Their attempts to ensure non-compatibility with any non-Microsoft product just furthered the case.2 - The fact that you defend IE6 and say it was the best browser around is suspicious. You say it as fact, which I just can't concede. IE6 was notorious for a lack of any semblance of security. Further integration with the OS just made that situation worse.3 - According to details I've read, Motorola thought it was more important to call the OS on their phone

Interestingly enough, Google is not a monopoly in search in South Korea. In fact, I think they are third behind Naver and Daum. Google is in single digits in search market share (Naver has something like 60%). This clearly is not about monopolistic practices.

I hate to reply to myself, but I am mistaken. After further consideration, I think this is about monopolies. This about South Korean search monopolies Naver and Daum losing marketshare because Google Android directs mobile searches through their portal. This is South Korean using the law to try and protect Naver. I wonder what Samsung thinks of Naver pushing around their partner?

so it's a local monopoly trying to protect their position using government pressure against a competitor. interesting. I also find it interesting there is even anything they can do given that Google does not force any vendor to use their OS let along use the OS( for free ) and license the Google software apps(gmail, maps, etc) along with the Google Market. Google doesn't even make phones.My first reaction to the article was that SK was looking to get some $ from Google and was pissed they didn't just open t

Hours later, SMPA investigators also conducted a surprise raid on the headquarters of local portal site Daum on similar suspicions. The investigators confiscated hard drives and other documents during their raid on Daum's Seoul office in Hannam-dong, central Seoul.

Google seems to have hindered the investigators from what's being said, something that none of the other companies under investigation have done.
Not sure how you can link that with protectionism or some kind of bias.

Perhaps we're talking about different aspects of the probe but as you can see the probes against Google are not part of some grand conspiracy, korean companies are investigated just as closely if there's suspicion that they've broken the law.

Grand conspiracies might exist but I'm pretty sure that this is not one.

Actually it's pretty cut and dry here. I really don't see room for question. The main problem that South Korea has with Android is that magnifying glass in the top left corner. You tap it and it seems to only get its results from either local machine or Google.com. The first isn't the problem and neither is the second. What the problem seems to be is that there doesn't see a way to change where Internet results as received from.

Now this wouldn't have been that big a fuss, if someone hadn't made such a big fuss about IE being so tightly integrated with Bing, which it really isn't but I digress; that's really a different conversation altogether. Anyway, so if we are going to slap Microsoft's hands for IE/Bing, then we need to slap the hands of Android/Google.

Also the South Korean office of Google's has been pretty up in arms as of late. Now this one office could or could not be a representation of Google as a whole, again that's up for debate and not really what I came to comment on. However, it is clear that Google's South Korean office has been acting a bit mighty fishy and the one thing police don't like is when people start acting funny.

However, I agree, I think Google should provide some options for changing up the search engine for the search button. It's not like I would ever change it, but it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling inside when I get options.

Now I know what people would say about Google and Android tied together like they are, but we have to remember, tablet's and phone's are being held as the way casual computing is heading. Now a lot wasn't done until after the fact with Microsoft and ever since their antitrust case, I think people have been trigger happy to protect end-users. When in reality I think that the people who proclaim to be protecting end-users seem to understand computers less. Anyway, this shouldn't come as a surprise.

I'd be surprised if South Korea actually did the same thing to say Apple! Apple usually argues that their stuff isn't a phone or a tablet or a computer. It's an Apple product and changing the options, search, or OS on an Apple product is like asking a microwave maker to provide a method for installing custom software on their microwave.

Anyway, not trying to start a war here. Just wanted to say: 1. Not surprised, 2. S. Korean office is indeed acting fishy which tends to agitate police.

Difficulty in changing the OS or other options like alternate browsers (engines, not using the WebKit back-end), can't install Flash, etc... while it can be frustrating for some users, is not monopoly abuse, or indications of such. Abuse on Apple's part would be if they contractually prevented app authors from re-publishing their apps on Android, Blackberry or WinPhone, which has not happened.

Actually it's pretty cut and dry here. I really don't see room for question. The main problem that South Korea has with Android is that magnifying glass in the top left corner. You tap it and it seems to only get its results from either local machine or Google.com. The first isn't the problem and neither is the second. What the problem seems to be is that there doesn't see a way to change where Internet results as received from.

You're thinking about this backwards. That's not monopoly abuse because they don't have a monopoly in mobile operating systems. You have to be abusing a monopoly position to impact competition. They're not in the case you cited. How exactly are they using their monopoly in *search* to keep Android competition out? If you can't fill in the blanks of "Google is using their monopoly in ___ to keep the competition out of ___.", then you don't have a case.

"Google is using their monopoly in _ANDROID__ to keep the competition out of _SEARCH__."
I know it doesn't make sense, but politicians rarely make sense. Basically, Android "in the eyes of people who love to regulate things here" should allow anyone to change anything, even if that breaks the whole concept of what Android does or works. So if Google creates an OS, then it is a monopoly (not to a sane person but then again we're not talking about those) for Google to make their OS use Google services. Go

The first blank needs to be an industry, not a product. "search" is an industry. android is not. you could say "android phones" is an industry (except the correct industry is "smart phones") but then that wouldn't work because right now google doesn't make any phones, and if you say "smart phones" then google does not have a monopoly.

The only potentially valid case I've heard against google relates to search advertising, but it gets pretty complicated which is why not much has been pinn

Yes and Apple owns Mac. I think you are missing the point. Google does own Android does that mean they get to say that Yahoo search cannot be used on their phones and tablets? Likewise, Ford owns well Ford vehicles, does that mean that Ford can prevent generic parts from working on their vehicles?

It's a pretty heated debate no doubt. Does ownership mean you can prevent others from working with you? Some say yes, some say no. However, the yahoos (no pun) that are calling the shots about it seem to b

As an Android user, I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never even seen a magnifying glass in the top left corner. I'm not trying to be annoying, I'm genuinely curious what you're talking about.

Well the first problem is that MS, a direct competitor, is complaining. The second is while there are examples of possible anti-competitive behaviors, I don't think there is anything approaching what MS did. Let's take the three examples that are mentioned in the article.

Google does not provide the same access to YouTube data that they have. So while competitors can get the results to look like Google, they aren't exactly the same. This is a fair complaint.

It seems as if some people just can't believe that Google would ever do anything wrong. This isn't the cute little search engine from 2000. They went public and became an ad company; 97% of their revenue comes from web advertising [gigaom.com]. But I think they're really good at appealing to tech communities, using feel-good phrases like "openness" to make themselves more endearing to those demographics.

Gasp, not ad revenue! Did you expect their revenue to come from people paying for search results? Please try to grasp this: Every company that solely works in the Internet space is an Ad company. That's how money is made on the internet, if you think this makes something evil then you probably should be unplugging your computer from your 56k modem right about now. I mean Slashdot (the site you apparently abhor but can't stop posting on) relies on web advertizing, and OH SHIT most of it is in the form of G

I think part of the difference between MS anti-trust and google is that MS directly hits your pocket book, when you HAVE TO buy windows for $XXX, while all google services are free. The ads come with them. In that sense it's very very tough to call google a monopoly because technically they're not directly making money off their search from the consumer standpoint. If Linux broke through on a feature and started strangling MS, and became available on MOST devices, would you call it a monopoly like you ca

maybe it's because Google does not make a phone as the headline states,("Google's Android phones") and Google does not force vendors to use their operating system. The operating system is free and open source so vendors can use it without opting to use Google's apps, market, or search defaults if they so desire. Unlike Microsoft's vast history of signing exclusionary deals and all the court documents which so they purposefully opt for designs which excluded others from competing on their platform.So if Andr

Whether Google has a monopoly on web search is irrelevant to the issue raised in the article. The present accusations concern their use of Android to drive search, not vice-versa. For that to be illegal / anti-competitive in the US, they would have to have a monopoly on smart phones (it is illegal to use the influence of a monopoly to drive other products, however, it is not illegal to use other products to push your monopoly).

Obligatory Apple comparison: shouldn't the iphone only working with iTunes be s

Thank you for clarifying that. I did mean the Store / app market (as being an online service from which Apple generates revenue it is the most comparable to the Google search service on Android), unfortunately I just tend to lump the iTunes software and online component into just iTunes.

If they did badly, let it shine on them in court. If they didn't, let it shine on them in court.

Why are you trying to make it sound like we demonize Microsoft when we have facts that prove (as opposed to a fake claim in an antitrust case from someone convicted of antitrust) that microsoft has been found guilty of antitrust?

Also, how is google a monopoly over anything? How hard is it to go to www.bing.com instead of www.google.com? What prevents you?

There are almost no literal monopolies, but there are companies dominant in some markets. Competition laws, among other things, are meant to prevent the abuse of such dominance.

MS clearly has such dominance in desktop OS market and abused it by forcing uneven terms on OEMs. Google's current EU investigation, for example, is due to dominance in web ads market and alleged abuse in refusa

you can't even suggest that Google has a monopoly on web search around here without getting pounded with downmods.

monopoly
The exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.
The exclusive possession, control, or exercise of something: "men don't have a monopoly on unrequited love".

Google has lower market share in search than many Apple products do in their respective categories (figures latest I can find for each product):

Except that Microsoft has a phone OS and Bing is it's default search. So Microsoft does do this, and nobody has raised a peep about it. Google is the new Microsoft, for no other reason than because they're big. Corporations are bad. Big ones must therefore be worse. It's really quite simple.

The responses to these stories are always interesting. Because it's Google, there will be criticisms of the South Korean commission and questioning of their claims. If this was Microsoft, however, the accusations would be taken at face value as more proof of Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior.

Here's the problem with that assertion.

Microsoft have a history of anti-competitive behaviour and interfering with federal investigations in multiple jurisdictions (EU, US, even South Korea). Google has no suc

I'd like to know when this whole "Treat corps like ballclubs" shit started and can we all just stop it please? I use products from dozens of companies but frankly i don't give a shit if they go up, if they go down, as long as it does what i want it to I'm gonna use it. If a company acts like a prick, like Intel with their compiler rigging and bribery? i just don't buy their product, is that so damned difficult?

And lets get one thing clear, okay? GOOGLE IS A MONOPOLY when it comes to search PERIOD. You don't have to have 100% of a market, merely be able to cause significant changes in that market. Apple is a monopoly when it comes to PMPs with the iPod having close to 90% of the market, that makes them a monopoly. MSFT is a monopoly when it comes to desktops and Intel is damned close to a monopoly on x86. Does that mean we should break out the pitchforks? Noooo, what that means is these corps need to be watched like a hawk because a monopoly gives a company enormous power which they can then use to slaughter competition. They can try to block competitor's products like the famous "Windows isn't done until Lotus won't run" or in this case give away a product (similar to how MSFT gave away IE) and use it to further lock in their market.

So can we please stop this "All go to hell except for cave 76!" bullshit and just accept ALL corporations are neither good nor evil and are nothing to be rooted for or booed, but simply should be monitored to make sure they don't use their power to destroy the free market? Doesn't that sound nice and rational?

Yes, but google is a monopoly because people fucking navigate under their own fucking free will to their website and run a search. Why? Because THEY FUCKING WANT TO RUN THEIR SEARCH ON GOOGLE!! ZOMG! Do they want Bing? No. Do they want Alta Vista? No. Do they want Dogpile? No. Let's stop pretending this is AT&T or Microsoft where everyone got locked in by chance and they no longer have a choice. A lot of established businesses are upset because Google ganked their industry due to their superior innovati

And people buy Windows computers because they want to run Windows programs, and they buy Apple devices because they are slick...is there a point there junior? Or was the foam spewing from your mouth so badly you had to write "All go to hell except cave 76!" so damned badly you couldn't think?

I'd like to thank you though, you gave almost a texbook typical fanboi response and your post should be used as a great example of treating corps like ballclubs. But I hate to break the news to you, but Google is NOT your friend, they are NOT "for" you, and if they could make an extra 15% by having you assraped by gorillas you'd be getting some gorilla loving at this very moment. The ONLY people Google is for is Google, no different than IBM, or MSFT, or Apple, or Oracle, or any other tech company. So stop treating them like a fucking ballclub, okay?

And I bet you TRULY believe that Apple "thinks different" and MSFT cares what you want to do today, don't you? Its called MARKETING slick, some companies kick ass at it, some suck, some are in between. what is sad is despite the antitrust investigations, investigations into their rigging search to cut out competitor's products you REALLY believe because somebody slapped a "do no evil" slogan that that somehow makes them better or different than any multinational corporation don't you?

The legal definition of monopoly has never been "highest marketshare only.". Highest marketshare is only one of the criteria but a more complete definition would be high enough market share to control the market; no suitable competitors exist; and high barrier to entry. In the case of both Google and Apple, a consumer can easily use a competitor. Where there are limitations they are external factors like copyright which do not make the question so cut and dry.

I'm afraid that Google has 100% share of my brain. When I think "search" I go straight to Google, and start typing. I don't think Yahoo, or Bing or other search engine. Hell, I don't even know if Yahoo runs its own search anymore or not. And I've gone to "Bing" and find it distractingly pretty. I don't even want to go there, I just want the mostly white space of Google, where I can find what I want and not let my ADD get the better of me.

I do get "Bing" for a certain group of people who want "pretty". Yeah,

There's actually many slashdotters who suggest using them. Now, they suggest using DuckDuckGo, but as DDG uses Bing back-end the results are the same. Of course for Slashdotters if it's Microsoft it sucks, but if it's basically the same but they don't figure out it uses MS back-end, then it's superb. Go figure!

I had this pointed out to me just the other day...reading that makes DDG sound pretty good if you ask me, but the reality is that I still haven't used it. Google does what I need and in actual fact I rarely even use search for anything essential...so getting the _best_ result usually isn't as important as getting the _fastest_good_enough_ result.

Hey, if I'm going to use an awful search engine, I might as well use the awful search engine that doesn't think it knows what I'm searching for better than me.
The free Microsoft FunBucks don't hurt either...

... actually, sorry, I'm wrong - Chrome will ask on first start if you don't carry over settings from an old install. And, unlike IE, it readily offers the three choices listed by GP, whereas in IE you get the choice of Bing, or going to a website where you can "install" other search providers.

There was one case where Google deliberately removed search engine selector - it was done for Russian language builds of Chrome, and there was a scandal when people found out (it was an explicit locale check in source

Since Android is open, the device manufacturers / Microsoft / South Korea / Anyone Else can modify it to not use Google for search results. At that point it may not be "Android Powered by Google", but that seems to be what South Korea wants. So, let device manufacturers modify Android, change the default search provider, and not include GApps. That way, every person who purchases a new phone gets to install a market, search for packages to do what they need, and the world will be happier since the monopoly has been crushed.

Of course this will never happen... South Korea isn't breaking up a "monopoly". They see a chance to extort money from another business, and use the "monopoly" threat to do so. They do this because the device manufacturers won't abandon Google's version of Android- it's exactly what 99% of their (the device manufacturers) customers want. Pre-installed apps, GMail, Facebook, and the Google Marketplace so they can easily find the latest app their friend told them about./P.

if south korean google offices used dirty tricks and lies to keep for example LG on the google search boat by trying to take away app market if they don't keep using bing, then the SK googlers might be pretty fucked.

otoh, google's motorola bid could be seen because moto used bing on some phones.

though, because it's the smaller korean search providers that are the cause of the investigation (which can lead to a ridiculously small fine, mind you) it might be because you can't

Although the source code is open, part of the value proposition is to access the Android store. Google, by tying together search and access to the android store, is doing "bundling". Since they are probably a monopoly, this bundling of services may be illegal as is reduces competition (in search and in store services).

Not saying that SK doesn't have any alterior motive, but there is quite a bit of precident (e.g., the browser wars of the PC-age) that indicate that perhaps there is some thing to be said ab

Although the source code is open, part of the value proposition is to access the Android store. Google, by tying together search and access to the android store, is doing "bundling". Since they are probably a monopoly, this bundling of services may be illegal as is reduces competition (in search and in store services).

There's nothing that forces the device to use Android Market. Cell companies can and do provide alternatives, sometimes making them the dominant app store or eliminating the Android Market entirely.

"At that point it may not be "Android Powered by Google", but that seems to be what South Korea wants."

Well that's the point, isn't it? It's a question if Google refusing to bless devices not using Google search an abuse of monopoly power. Much like Microsoft refusing to bless (or giving bad terms) to manufacturers who wanted to bundle Netscape instead of IE.

Personally, I don't worship Google, and I use Microsoft products on a daily basis. My take is this: If Google builds a service, and offers additional services which tie into this, what is wrong? Google isn't blocking Bing apps from the store and device makers can chose "default" apps on phones. This is not a monopoly... it's laziness on the device manufacturers' / users' part to not install an alternative. When I purchased a new Windows PC, I would install FireFox and set that as my default browser. I

There has never been such cases about them. they didnt have to be raided, they didnt have to delete files to escape investigation........ they just dont get investigated. microsoft got bothered approx. 2 times in this entire 30 year period in its history. nothing more. freaking 30 years, total domination of personal computer compatibles, and just 2 times. one is the ie thing, and the other is eu's browser ballot box.

and dont get me started on apple.

maybe google also should start buying representatives and bureaucrats........

Both MS and Apple have been repeatedly investigated by the EU. MS has had a trial in the US (which they lost). Apple was investigated a time or two, but not so much for monopoly practices (which is reasonable, given that they don't have one). Just because SK hasn't done so (and I don't know they haven't), means nothing. Governments rarely bother investigating trade practices of any corporation unless someone complains.

im going to slap the same reply i made to someone who had reading comprehension problems like you.

i dont know whether you are incapable of reading comprehension. in case you havent noticed, i have recounted the incidents. 'repeatedly investigated' -> does not mean shit. what happened with the investigations ? how many times were they raided ? how many fines they got ?

I worked for a south Korean company for quite a few years, you were expected to know exactly what they wanted with little to no detail (like one day the main manager walked in told me I was going to make him a parts sales forecast and walked out... I was a 12$ an hour box monkey in the warehouse), and every single time they would act like pissy little babies when they did not get exactly what was in their mind, call you names and threaten your job.

Just like you could download any other browser on Windows. And that still doesn't change the fact that Google is working with manufacturers to keep competitors away. Google also owns AdMob, which specializes in mobile advertising and has 90% market share. That's a huge monopoly. And Google has used their monopoly to restrict advertisers from using other platforms for the same ads if they want to use Google's ad platforms. That's outright monopoly abuse.

But you couldn't uninstall IE because it was a "vital part of the OS" (at least until they were forced to). You could also install any office suite you wanted, but only MSOffice had access to hidden APIs that made it run at a decent speed (a huge advantage in the early days of Windoze). Despite all that (and plenty more), Microsoft ended up with a slap on the wrist that didn't even pay for a fraction of the costs the DOJ put into the investigation.

But you couldn't uninstall IE because it was a "vital part of the OS" (at least until they were forced to)

It WAS/IS a vital part of the OS. We aren't talking the kernel, or the drivers, but the shell, Explorer.exe used the IE components for doing close to everything. You did have sillyness like 98lite that removed IE by actually installing the old windows 95 shell from disk. However, due to the fuss about being forced to have IE, Microsoft just component-ized the hell out of it, so if you were to "uninstall" IE, you are actually only getting rid of the executable, not the essential OS components.

The problem the DOJ had with respect to IE and MS was not at the consumer level but at the OEM level where MS did all they could keep Netscape out of the market by hinting, paying, and threatening them not to install Netscape. In this case if Google had did the same to every app store or manufacturer to keep Bing out you would have a point. It appears in the worse case, Google is paying to make theirs the default which isn't the same.

Which advertisers were restricted from using other platforms? I'm pretty sure I can advertise where I want without penalty.

You cannot run ads you run on AdWords on any other ad network. It's forbidden by TOS and they will ban your account.

Which manufacturers has Google worked with to keep competitors away? Pretty much all android phone manufacturers also have windows phone offerings and some even have symbian or other OS offerings too.

Beside the point. They keep competitors away from Android phones. And no, I'm not talking about Symbian or WP7 or other phone OS', I'm talking about search and other service providers. Google works in many areas and uses that as advantage illegally.